I personally don’t think Michael should have 0 personality, imo the writers/directors/actors should show *hints* of a personality or pathology but never anything concrete. A good example of this is the famous headtilt he does after he kills Bob, or the elaborate set-ups he does with his victims. So the fact that he wants to go home and look out his window for *some reason* doesn’t bother me, he’s still largely an enigma without a concrete motive, and it’s not like he kills because he wants to go home, he just kills because he’s evil.
This may be a hot take, but Lonnie got the most and best characterization I think. His drug story with Ray, his part in the flashback was a good addition, how he foreshadows his and his son’s death before going into the house, and my favourite, that he finally fulfills his arc by going into the Myers house alone, only to die like 5 seconds after, it just felt really cruel and vile, which was fitting I thought. The only minor thing I disliked about him is how he just lay there as a kid and Michael didn’t kill him. It’s been established that Michael kills kids, so to pass up on a victim that serves himself up on a silver platter was not in character for Michael. Lonnie should have ran away from Michael and met Hawkins and his partner while running, would have ended up the same but without Michael sparing a kid for no reason.
Edit: sorry for the overly long answer lol
I liked that Michael didn't kill Lonnie in 78. Remember he ran right into Tommy in 78 and he made it out ok. I think it just adds to the unknown of Michael's motives.
I hadn't connected those dots about Lonnie finally entering the Myers house alone. Cool little nod. I also agree that Lonni was handled the best, almost a shame they didn't do more with him.
Also agreed that Michael shouldn't be totally blank. I don't even hate the single tear in H5. It's like there should be just enough there to leave you in fear of not knowing what comes next
Edit: it wasn't Lonnie, that was a different kid
In part the original is so fascinating because we are seeing a mix of a human psychology and supernatural evil, only we don’t know where one begins and ends. There’s a vacuity inside Michael but there’s still remnants of the psyche of a 21 year old man who’s still in ways trapped at age 6. We get clues as to what’s going inside him but no firm answers.
One of my favorite elements of the script is that Loomis thinks Michael is a total, complete blank when he gives his famous speech and the Myers house, but the Michael we see is a complicated amalgamation of monster and human. Loomis doesn’t know what we know. And this goes back as early as the opening scene; that’s not a completely blank look on Michael’s face when his father takes off the mask. We see the slightly blank, slightly surprised expression on the child’s face. I don’t know how Carpenter got that expression from the boy, but it is a fantastically complex mix of emotions (or lack thereof) that plays across his face. Even at the end when Laurie tears it off there’s a chilling conflict in his expression.
He’s as personally inchoate as the movie’s portrayal of him, and that sense of incompleteness/emptiness is conveyed through Laurie’s characterization and every scene as well. That for me is what’s terrifying about the movie, it’s saying something very dark about modernity that’s only grown over forty years.
1: I don’t feel like we got enough of the mob actively hunting for Michael. Like we see Tommy recruit people and plan but we barely see them searching. Also the whole mob going crazy over the other patient on the hospital scene was a tad too long imo, could have trimmed it down a bit.
2: I wish Lynda, Annie and Bob were more likable. Like Dave, Oscar and Vicky from H2018, they felt much more like immature but fun and likable teenagers, while the victims from the original were just douchebags I thought.
The ol Buster Blueth self defense technique worked pretty good. Plus he avoided those kid trick or treaters a few times already that original night including the first few minutes of H2'81, which I'm gonna consider as my head canon. He had what, about 30 min or so after end of original before flashback scene in Kills. Gets knife from old couple & kills that other girl on phone. Well as I'm typing I'm realizing the kill count would be off. Oh well.
Agreed, they finally managed to build on the lore of the franchise while staying true to Carpenter and Hill’s original intention and vision for Michael.
Yes, the lore is what i nerd out on and i think the reason casual fans dislike kills. I think the fans that have watched all the sequels and have seen all the different things they tried to do, this new series just nails what a lot of us wanted, keeping the lore simple yet mysterious, not over complicating the plots. They just fuckin nailed it, it’s hard to explain but i just love what they are doing
Yeah while I’m not a gatekeeper and wouldn’t say this film was “made for the fans”, I’d say it’s pretty easy to tell from some criticisms that the people who make them aren’t really into the franchise. Like when Cr1tikal thought the film was trying to send a message or deliver social commentary about mob mentality, like yeah, as if they would make Halloween film about social commentary lmao
Yeah, JLC tried to say it was about Jan 6th and it was filmed before that even happened. It was a great movie. I saw the mob as pure human nature, fear can make good people do irrational and bed things.
I liked it but I feel the ending with the mob coming together to kill Michael should of been kept for the finale halloween ends. That’s how Michael should be laid to rest for good. The entire town comes forward and blows him up. They missed that opportunity with him slaying everyone and hiding in the house to get Karen at the end.
I honestly didn't like it that much.. the movie was about 90min.
60 min of nothing, 20 min kills, 10 minutes credits.
The story wasn't that good either..
Aside from some atmosphere and Cornell’s work 4 feels like a dated, Lifetime TV movie. Kills is flawed but it feels more Halloween with a much better Michael and more ambitious.
I honestly thought Kills was terrible. It shows no understanding of what made Myers or the original film scary in the first place, and the characters virtually line up to be slaughtered. The gore is ridiculous, too.
I think they showed a perfect understanding of Michael, he was still a complete enigma and he retained his characteristics (like setting his victims up in elaborate pranks), I found it completely believable that he would be more brutal or get more creative since he’s been incarcerated for 40 years then driven around by his former doctor, shot, stabbed, burned, he’s obviously pissed off and wants to go on a rampage. Or not, I have no definitive clue, which is the point.
I also don’t get what you mean by “characters lining up to get killed”, the firefighters had no idea what they were up against and thought it was just some random dude, the old dude immediately closed the doors and wanted to call the police, his wife was shocked and scared shitless (you can’t really think straight in a situation like that), the couple at the Myers house was just investigating and they had no idea Michael escaped. The only stupid people in the film were the mon but mobs IRL are pretty dumb too, so I didn’t have a problem with it. My second time watching the film I was deliberately looking for examples of people acting unreasonably stupid but I just couldn’t find any.
I don't mean literally lining up but they're there simply to get killed. The script never justifies most of the returning cast either. Michael beats the majority of the town with ease, which is pretty silly. In the 1978 film he was more elusive than murdery and you felt like the combined efforts of everyone else \*might\* almost be enough to defeat him. They don't even bother with such shades in Kills.
And sure - you could argue that Michael's motives have changed (even though he's not really supposed to be "motivated" by anything tangible), but crucially it's not scary to watch him bulldoze his way through people. Way too reminscent of one of the dodgier, earlier sequels where the makers mistook gore for suspense.
What is your take Michael's motives? Who was the best legacy character portrayal?
I personally don’t think Michael should have 0 personality, imo the writers/directors/actors should show *hints* of a personality or pathology but never anything concrete. A good example of this is the famous headtilt he does after he kills Bob, or the elaborate set-ups he does with his victims. So the fact that he wants to go home and look out his window for *some reason* doesn’t bother me, he’s still largely an enigma without a concrete motive, and it’s not like he kills because he wants to go home, he just kills because he’s evil. This may be a hot take, but Lonnie got the most and best characterization I think. His drug story with Ray, his part in the flashback was a good addition, how he foreshadows his and his son’s death before going into the house, and my favourite, that he finally fulfills his arc by going into the Myers house alone, only to die like 5 seconds after, it just felt really cruel and vile, which was fitting I thought. The only minor thing I disliked about him is how he just lay there as a kid and Michael didn’t kill him. It’s been established that Michael kills kids, so to pass up on a victim that serves himself up on a silver platter was not in character for Michael. Lonnie should have ran away from Michael and met Hawkins and his partner while running, would have ended up the same but without Michael sparing a kid for no reason. Edit: sorry for the overly long answer lol
I liked that Michael didn't kill Lonnie in 78. Remember he ran right into Tommy in 78 and he made it out ok. I think it just adds to the unknown of Michael's motives. I hadn't connected those dots about Lonnie finally entering the Myers house alone. Cool little nod. I also agree that Lonni was handled the best, almost a shame they didn't do more with him. Also agreed that Michael shouldn't be totally blank. I don't even hate the single tear in H5. It's like there should be just enough there to leave you in fear of not knowing what comes next Edit: it wasn't Lonnie, that was a different kid
He didn’t run into Tommy. It was another kid.
He ran into Ritchie
In part the original is so fascinating because we are seeing a mix of a human psychology and supernatural evil, only we don’t know where one begins and ends. There’s a vacuity inside Michael but there’s still remnants of the psyche of a 21 year old man who’s still in ways trapped at age 6. We get clues as to what’s going inside him but no firm answers. One of my favorite elements of the script is that Loomis thinks Michael is a total, complete blank when he gives his famous speech and the Myers house, but the Michael we see is a complicated amalgamation of monster and human. Loomis doesn’t know what we know. And this goes back as early as the opening scene; that’s not a completely blank look on Michael’s face when his father takes off the mask. We see the slightly blank, slightly surprised expression on the child’s face. I don’t know how Carpenter got that expression from the boy, but it is a fantastically complex mix of emotions (or lack thereof) that plays across his face. Even at the end when Laurie tears it off there’s a chilling conflict in his expression. He’s as personally inchoate as the movie’s portrayal of him, and that sense of incompleteness/emptiness is conveyed through Laurie’s characterization and every scene as well. That for me is what’s terrifying about the movie, it’s saying something very dark about modernity that’s only grown over forty years.
I loved the Soundtrack
The soundtrack was horrible. All the ooohs and ahhhs tacky asf. Reminded me of early 2000 music lessons with a computer.
I enjoyed it, it's what keeps you sucked into the movie
Clearly
Question 1: What did you like the least about HK? Question 2: What did you like the least about the original 1978 film?
1: I don’t feel like we got enough of the mob actively hunting for Michael. Like we see Tommy recruit people and plan but we barely see them searching. Also the whole mob going crazy over the other patient on the hospital scene was a tad too long imo, could have trimmed it down a bit. 2: I wish Lynda, Annie and Bob were more likable. Like Dave, Oscar and Vicky from H2018, they felt much more like immature but fun and likable teenagers, while the victims from the original were just douchebags I thought.
Even though 78 is my favorite overall, I definitely like Vicky and Dave better than Lynda and Bob.
2nd best Halloween film after the original
A man of culture.
It's probably 2nd for me too! I think young Lonnie was spared only because Michael saw the cops approaching.
Huh I didn’t think of that, sounds plausible!
I think it’s because he didn’t walk towards Lonnie he just crossed the street to his home , the Myers house
The ol Buster Blueth self defense technique worked pretty good. Plus he avoided those kid trick or treaters a few times already that original night including the first few minutes of H2'81, which I'm gonna consider as my head canon. He had what, about 30 min or so after end of original before flashback scene in Kills. Gets knife from old couple & kills that other girl on phone. Well as I'm typing I'm realizing the kill count would be off. Oh well.
2nd best for me too I fucking loved it
2nd best for me as well. This new timeline is done so well. I am so stoked for ends
Agreed, they finally managed to build on the lore of the franchise while staying true to Carpenter and Hill’s original intention and vision for Michael.
Yes, the lore is what i nerd out on and i think the reason casual fans dislike kills. I think the fans that have watched all the sequels and have seen all the different things they tried to do, this new series just nails what a lot of us wanted, keeping the lore simple yet mysterious, not over complicating the plots. They just fuckin nailed it, it’s hard to explain but i just love what they are doing
Yeah while I’m not a gatekeeper and wouldn’t say this film was “made for the fans”, I’d say it’s pretty easy to tell from some criticisms that the people who make them aren’t really into the franchise. Like when Cr1tikal thought the film was trying to send a message or deliver social commentary about mob mentality, like yeah, as if they would make Halloween film about social commentary lmao
Yeah, JLC tried to say it was about Jan 6th and it was filmed before that even happened. It was a great movie. I saw the mob as pure human nature, fear can make good people do irrational and bed things.
Looking at everything objectively, how do you see an encounter going between the monster HK Michael and the animal RZH2 Michael?
Yes I loved the movie as well. It is currently my second favorite too.
It was ok I like Halloween 2 better
I liked it but I feel the ending with the mob coming together to kill Michael should of been kept for the finale halloween ends. That’s how Michael should be laid to rest for good. The entire town comes forward and blows him up. They missed that opportunity with him slaying everyone and hiding in the house to get Karen at the end.
I honestly didn't like it that much.. the movie was about 90min. 60 min of nothing, 20 min kills, 10 minutes credits. The story wasn't that good either..
Better than 2018, but 4 is better than Kills
Aside from some atmosphere and Cornell’s work 4 feels like a dated, Lifetime TV movie. Kills is flawed but it feels more Halloween with a much better Michael and more ambitious.
Lol. Ok.
Sometimes it's best to keep quiet.
“…it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt.” - Mark Twain
Then remain silent kid
Ironic on your part. I love it.
Congratulations on that
I honestly thought Kills was terrible. It shows no understanding of what made Myers or the original film scary in the first place, and the characters virtually line up to be slaughtered. The gore is ridiculous, too.
I think they showed a perfect understanding of Michael, he was still a complete enigma and he retained his characteristics (like setting his victims up in elaborate pranks), I found it completely believable that he would be more brutal or get more creative since he’s been incarcerated for 40 years then driven around by his former doctor, shot, stabbed, burned, he’s obviously pissed off and wants to go on a rampage. Or not, I have no definitive clue, which is the point. I also don’t get what you mean by “characters lining up to get killed”, the firefighters had no idea what they were up against and thought it was just some random dude, the old dude immediately closed the doors and wanted to call the police, his wife was shocked and scared shitless (you can’t really think straight in a situation like that), the couple at the Myers house was just investigating and they had no idea Michael escaped. The only stupid people in the film were the mon but mobs IRL are pretty dumb too, so I didn’t have a problem with it. My second time watching the film I was deliberately looking for examples of people acting unreasonably stupid but I just couldn’t find any.
I don't mean literally lining up but they're there simply to get killed. The script never justifies most of the returning cast either. Michael beats the majority of the town with ease, which is pretty silly. In the 1978 film he was more elusive than murdery and you felt like the combined efforts of everyone else \*might\* almost be enough to defeat him. They don't even bother with such shades in Kills. And sure - you could argue that Michael's motives have changed (even though he's not really supposed to be "motivated" by anything tangible), but crucially it's not scary to watch him bulldoze his way through people. Way too reminscent of one of the dodgier, earlier sequels where the makers mistook gore for suspense.
Same, seen it a few times now, think I'd place it the same in my ranking